Printing from Quark?

[Johnny0110]

Hi guys,

Im new here but Im hoping you guys can help me. Here's the deal.... I am a long time user of Quark and a professional photographer. I love using Quark to design whatever I need to do as far as things for my photography business, but, obviously you cant print JPG's from Quark. And that is what my lab need to output prints. What is the BEST way to get these files to JPG format without loosing any color or saturation, DPI, sharpness, or anything else??

I am aware of the export to EPS or PDF features, but, this needs to be reopened in CS2 and resaved as a JPG. Is that the best way? Will I loose anyhting in the process?

Thanks !!

JT

[jimking]

Why does your lab need jpegs to output prints? What kind of prints? What kind of workflow is it? What kind of file are you opening in CS2? What CS2 program are you refering to, Photoshop? What is the end result are these Quark files going to end up being used for. What version and platform are you using? Need more details.:confused:

[Johnny0110]

I want to design in Quark and output to a photo lab that will only take JPG files. These files will be pages of an album. Mostly 10"x10" layouts. I can use Photoshop CS2 as a second step if needed?

JT





Why does your lab need jpegs to output prints? What kind of prints? What kind of workflow is it? What kind of file are you opening in CS2? What CS2 program are you refering to, Photoshop? What is the end result are these Quark files going to end up being used for. What version and platform are you using? Need more details.:confused:

[PrintDriver]

If you really have to... (simplified version):
Print to Postscript from Quark (be careful to set images to full resolution output). Distill to pdf using Acrobat Distiller. Open pdf in Photoshop and save as JPG.

Why you'd want to do that as a professional photographer is beyond me. Yikes!
Your text is gonna look like crap.
I'd find a printer who can make your stuff look good directly from Quark. Cost aside.

[Johnny0110]

Nevermind....

Im just going to use Indesign CS2, like I should have done from the start. One click, "Export" and save as JPG.

This is why Adobe is kicking Quarks ass when it come to keeping up with the demands of people like me and thousands of others.

JT




If you really have to...
Print to Postscript from Quark (be careful to set images to full resolution output). Distill to pdf using Acrobat Distiller. Open pdf in Photoshop and save as JPG.

Why you'd want to do that as a professional photographer is beyond me. Yikes!
Your text is gonna look like crap.
I'd find a printer who can make your stuff look good directly from Quark. Cost aside.

[PrintDriver]

Your text is still gonna look like crap.

[jimking]

Ditto----jpegs are of a lossy compression format, not good for print. It seems to me that if they can output a print from a jpeg they should be able to print from a eps. I would question these lab people a little about this because it sounds fishy to me.

[Johnny0110]

Your text is still gonna look like crap.
Not at all....

As photographers, we ALL (at least 98% of us) print in JPG format when we design and print albums. Most labs that print photos will ONLY take JPG & sometimes TIFF formats. And the text is always dead sharp. We're not talking about 80"x100" prints people.

Like I said, I just tried to use InDesign CS2 to do this a little while ago, and what do ya know, it actually outputs in JPG format!

Using highres images, and text, it looks awesome when zoming in to 200%. Problem solved. I was just trying to figure out how to do it in Quark since I have been using it for years but never had to do such a thing since all of the design I did was for advertising. Everyting else I use is Adobe, so Like I said, I will just switch over to InDesign. Better software anyway.

JT

[Johnny0110]

Ditto----jpegs are of a lossy compression format, not good for print. It seems to me that if they can output a print from a jpeg they should be able to print from a eps. I would question these lab people a little about this because it sounds fishy to me.
Like I said, the "lab" that I, and thousands of others use, will only take JPG format for printing photos. JPG is a lossy compression if you are talking about big compression. I shoot in the highest resolution RAW mode with my Nikon D200 digital camera and when I convert to JPG format, you cant tell at all. As in not at all, zero, nada, nothing, no sign of compression at all.

JT

[budafist]

The indesign export to jpg gives low res jpgs.

Instead, save the file as a pdf, open the pdf in photoshop at 300dpi and save your jpg from there.

I just tried it now. I swear the quality is a million times better.

[Ned]

Yeah... Exporting as JPG, GIF or PNG from Indy or Illy is a "Save for Web" process, which means 72dpi. Exporting a TIFF allows you to choose your resolution.

[rickself]

Well, at least we got him away from Quack!

And now I'll start saving everything as jpeg :D

[Johnny0110]

Yeah... Exporting as JPG, GIF or PNG from Indy or Illy is a "Save for Web" process, which means 72dpi. Exporting a TIFF allows you to choose your resolution.

Yeh, your right.... wow.....

So Im back at square one..... as far as a one click process!!!!

JT

[Ned]

Ask if the lab will take .TIFs?

[PrintDriver]

It seems like an awful lot going on here to produce images as jpg files.
If you don't care about raster text, why don't you just design in Photoshop?
InDesign and Quark are trying to save you from your folly. ;)

What is the BEST way to get these files to JPG format without loosing any color or saturation, DPI, sharpness, or anything else??
This is a contradiction in terms. While your images may stand to be compressed once or twice as jpg files, your text and any other vector work won't. I don't know about the rest of you but I despise raster text even at small brochure sizes. Some people don't care.

As far as this 'lab' taking only jpg files, none of the labs I work with that had their start in the old-school photography business want anything to do with jpg files, no matter how small or large the output. Not for pro photo work. I don't know what 98% of photographers you are talking about, but none that I know of print from jpg. In fact most of them print from 400dpi .eps files on the best output setting the cont-tone printer has and onto archival photo paper. Some use archival inkjet. These are digital wedding/event photogs, not my large format film guys. This concept of jpg file photo printing sounds a little bit like low-end on-line gang printing. But hey, if you can sell it...

Yes, in a production environment, on occasion, jpg is used as a rapid transit mode of getting an image from one place to another when time is of the essence, but not a text file.

I'm an image snob. What can I say?:D

[Johnny0110]

Well, Mr. Print Driver......

I have designed in Photoshop for years and I also come from a Quark background in advertising layout, so I thought I would simply ask if there was a way to do this. I know how to print a digital file, trust me. Almost ALL of the labs, very, very, very well known and respected labs, will only take JPG's and TIFF files for printing. Low-end gang printing??? Ummm..... no. Also, I never said "TEXT FILE" in any of my postings. Text in the image file, yes. And when printed at 400DPI at a 10"x10" size with 20pt text here and there they are very sharp when printed on a Noritsu.

Not sure where you are from, but myself and a lot of other high end professional photographers have no problem printing in JPG. I think you are actually one of those "old school" guys that just heard that JPG is no way to save files because they are "compressed" and that is baaaaaad. If any of my clients ever pick up their prints and then take out a loop to look a little closer, I will drive to where you are and kiss your bare ass and tell you, you were right.

Whatever..... Im done here.

Thanks for everyones input, even if it was a little off.....

JT







It seems like an awful lot going on here to produce images as jpg files.
If you don't care about raster text, why don't you just design in Photoshop?
InDesign and Quark are trying to save you from your folly. ;)


This is a contradiction in terms. While your images may stand to be compressed once or twice as jpg files, your text and any other vector work won't. I don't know about the rest of you but I despise raster text even at small brochure sizes. Some people don't care.

As far as this 'lab' taking only jpg files, none of the labs I work with that had their start in the old-school photography business want anything to do with jpg files, no matter how small or large the output. Not for pro photo work. I don't know what 98% of photographers you are talking about, but none that I know of print from jpg. In fact most of them print from 400dpi .eps files on the best output setting the cont-tone printer has and onto archival photo paper. Some use archival inkjet. These are digital wedding/event photogs, not my large format film guys. This concept of jpg file photo printing sounds a little bit like low-end on-line gang printing. But hey, if you can sell it...

Yes, in a production environment, on occasion, jpg is used as a rapid transit mode of getting an image from one place to another when time is of the essence, but not a text file.

I'm an image snob. What can I say?:D

[PrintDriver]

Nope. Not an old-timer film guy. Just in the oddball part of the printing world. Been doing this particular stuff for almost 10 years now.
I made an assumption based on limited information.
And you now say your labs take .tif files. At which point, I concede to your point. :D

Edit: I had to go look up the Noritsu. Sweet. I'm more attuned to Durst though.